Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Ege, Izmir, Turkey.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 May;93(5):748-56. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.11.037. Epub 2012 Mar 28.
To compare the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), interferential currents (IFCs), and shortwave diathermy (SWD) against each other and sham intervention with exercise training and education as a multimodal package.
A double-blind, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial.
Departments of physical medicine and rehabilitation in 4 centers.
Patients (N=203) with knee osteoarthritis (OA).
The patients were randomized by the principal center into the following 6 treatment groups: TENS sham, TENS, IFCs sham, IFCs, SWD sham, and SWD. All interventions were applied 5 times a week for 3 weeks. In addition, exercises and an education program were given. The exercises were carried out as part of a home-based training program after 3 weeks' supervised group exercise.
Primary outcome was a visual analog scale (0-100mm) to assess knee pain. Other outcome measures were time to walk a distance of 15m, range of motion, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Nottingham Health Profile, and paracetamol intake (in grams).
We found a significant decrease in all assessment parameters (P<.05), without a significant difference among the groups except WOMAC stiffness score and range of motion. However, the intake of paracetamol was significantly lower in each treatment group when compared with the sham groups at 3 months (P<.05). Also, the patients in the IFCs group used a lower amount of paracetamol at 6 months (P<.05) in comparison with the IFCs sham group.
Although all groups showed significant improvements, we can suggest that the use of physical therapy agents in knee OA provided additional benefits in improving pain because paracetamol intake was significantly higher in the patients who were treated with 3 sham interventions in addition to exercise and education.
比较经皮神经电刺激(TENS)、干扰电流(IFC)和短波透热疗法(SWD)之间的疗效,以及假干预与运动训练和教育相结合的多模式治疗。
双盲、随机、对照、多中心试验。
4 个中心的物理医学和康复科。
膝关节骨关节炎(OA)患者(N=203)。
患者由主要中心随机分为以下 6 个治疗组:TENS 假刺激、TENS、IFC 假刺激、IFC、SWD 假刺激和 SWD。所有干预措施每周应用 5 次,共 3 周。此外,还进行了运动和教育计划。运动是在 3 周的监督小组运动后作为家庭为基础的训练计划的一部分进行的。
主要观察指标为视觉模拟评分(0-100mm),以评估膝关节疼痛。其他观察指标包括行走 15m 的时间、关节活动度、西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)、诺丁汉健康概况和扑热息痛摄入量(克)。
我们发现所有评估参数均有显著下降(P<.05),但除 WOMAC 僵硬评分和关节活动度外,各组之间无显著差异。然而,与假刺激组相比,在 3 个月时,每个治疗组的扑热息痛摄入量均显著降低(P<.05)。此外,与 IFC 假刺激组相比,IFC 组在 6 个月时扑热息痛的用量也较低(P<.05)。
尽管所有组均显示出显著改善,但我们可以认为,在膝关节 OA 中使用物理治疗剂除运动训练和教育外,还可通过增加疼痛改善而提供额外益处,因为假刺激组的患者扑热息痛摄入量显著较高。